Publication: The Citizen
Issued:
Date: 2009-01-12
Reporter: Paul Kirk
| Publication |
The Citizen
|
| Date |
2009-01-12
|
|
Reporter |
Paul Kirk |
|
Web Link |
www.citizen.co.za |
5 February. That is the date that ANC President Jacob Zuma will formally be
charged in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. After giving Zuma and his legal team
a copy of the charge sheet the National Prosecuting Authority will then request
the court to place the Zuma case back on
the motion roll *1.
Spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority, Tlali
Tlali told the Citizen that, despite speculation in the media over a plea
bargain no such deal was on the table. Said Tlali: 'I can confirm there have
been no talks about a plea bargain and I can confirm there is no plea bargain.
We will be arranging a court date in consultation with the defence team."
Asked to confirm the 5 February date that
the Citizen obtained from the Pietermaritzburg High Court
Tlali said: "I cannot confirm or deny this. We will be meeting with the defence
soon though."
This means that Zuma will, almost certainly, be on the presidential campaign
trail as an accused person, and should he win the election might have to govern
the country from the accused dock of the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Head of the University of the Witwatersrand Law School Professor David
Unterhalter SC described this situation as "untenable" saying that Zuma could
not be a sitting president and also embroiled in a complex and lengthy criminal
trial.
Unterhalter said this meant that, should Zuma win the forthcoming presidential
elections the ANC would have to consider enacting laws to prevent a sitting
president being prosecuted.
In order to bring about such legislation the ANC could simply use its majority
in parliament to force through the legislation. Doing so would probably not mean
altering the constitution – which would require a two-thirds majority –
something the ANC may not be able to count on.
Professor Andre Thomashausen, head of the Department of International and
Comparative Law at the University of South Africa, told the Citizen that such
legislation was common in many parts of the world. "In most countries there is
similar legislation. In order to prosecute a sitting president it would be
necessary to first impeach him, remove him from office, and then only could the
prosecution begin."
In handing down his judgment yesterday Acting Judge President of the Supreme
Court of Appeal, Louis Harms, ordered that Zuma bear the costs the National
Prosecuting Authority incurred in bringing their application.
Harms savaged last year's ruling by the Pietermaritzburg High Court that
suspended charges against Zuma, finding that there had been a political
conspiracy against the former deputy president of the country.
In suspending the charges against Zuma, the Pietermaritzburg High Court found
that the NPA should have invited Zuma to make representations regarding his
prosecution before charging him.
However Harms pointed out that the NPA had never denied Zuma the right to make
representations and that Zuma had always been free to make them – regardless of
whether or not he was invited to or not.
Harms slammed the Pietermaritzburg judgment as "incomprehensible" and overturned
the order. This means that the charges against Zuma were automatically
reinstated and the ANC president is an accused person.
The Pietermaritzburg High Court only suspended the corruption, fraud,
racketeering and tax evasion charges against Zuma pending the finding of
yesterday's appeal.
Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley yesterday confirmed that he was considering an
appeal to the Constitutional Court. Hulley said his client would also be making
representations to the National Prosecuting Authority.
When Zuma was first charged with corruption relating to the arms deal the state
agreed to cover his legal bills – meanning the taxpayer is paying for both the
prosecution and defence of ANC president Jacob Zuma.
With acknowledgements
to Paul Kirk and The Citizen.
*1 Not on the motion
roll, the criminal trial roll.